The other comments have covered a lot of the background and variances throughout the world. But what I’ll add is that few countries are purely in one camp or the other. To use the USA as an example, criminal cases are adversarial, in the sense that the defense attorney will duke it out with the government’s attorney whether someone goes to prison.

For civil cases like a contract dispute, the procedure is closer to an inquisition system, although with the judge still merely presiding over the process. But attorneys in a USA civil case can depose witnesses, much like how (I think) a European judge-led inquisition would call a witness, and similar to how British coroners conduct an inquest (if murder mystery depictions on the BBC are accurate).

Perhaps the full thrust of the inquisition style can be found in USA federal agencies, whose rulemaking capacity requires asking direct questions to subject matter experts in a public forum, one which eventually leads to a determination on some germane topic, often enacting secondary legislation at the same time. Americans might not necessarily call such an action as a “ruling”, but evidence was taken, all sides were heard, and even public comment was accepted, before rendering a decision.

That said, one could argue that such “Article III” rulemaking (eg FCC Commissioners) or judgements (eg Immigration Court) are distinct from the traditional judicial rulings from “Article I” courts (eg US Supreme Court). But that’s a Constitutional wrinkle for another discussion.

In Western use, mostly for blowing one’s nose or wiping sweat off one’s brow. Sometimes in a cinematic manner which evokes refinement in the course of labor. Might also be used to blot tears, either one’s own or to give to someone who has tears but no hanky.

In East Asian use, as a hand towel, since many public bathrooms do not provision paper towels. Very useful in the USA as well, since many restrooms are moving towards air dryers of varying quality. But a handkerchief is always on-hand and can also reduce time spent in the restroom.

I personally keep two handkerchiefs on me, for both the Western and East Asian use-cases.

I am always deeply enthralled when math and comp-sci unite to yield an elegant result, where my definition of elegance is: efficient + minimal.

I mean, you’re still using a resource that was provisioned only for emergency use. The rough analogy is borrowing the exterior-mounted fire extinguisher of your apartment building to use it as a temporary paperweight, and then putting it back after two minutes.

Your use of it in this way might be benign, but if everyone is doing that, someone will eventually mess up and that resource won’t be there when it’s truly needed. Plus, what is the objective from calling your own elevator while you’re in it? Just yell lol

I don’t mean to sound boring, but while there’s a time and place for pranks and fun in an elevator, I personally think the emergency equipment is off-limits. Everything else is fair game, up to and including playing Doom on the LCD screen that modern elevators seem to have.

Could you explain more about what you observed? Many elevator phones have an inbound number, so that emergency responders can return a call, although it would be unlisted for obvious reasons. So far as I’m aware, the phone is akin to a normal phone line, rather than being a special line like a payphone. So if you did find the number, it may be possible to call it.

That said, I can’t endorse messing around with the emergency equipment in an elevator, even though it’s not actively in use. Enough prank calls might cause the property management to disconnect the line, making it unavailable when an actual emergency arises. And even though that would incur legal liability for the management, that would still mean someone who needed help couldn’t get help.

EDIT: And just to get ahead of anyone suggesting that calling the emergency phone is a way to test it, it really isn’t. A true test would be making an outbound call to the emergency dispatcher, and then asking them to verify the caller ID and return the call. Good property management should already be doing this regularly, in the same way as testing the fire alarms and checking extinguishers.

(I’m assuming you’re in USA)

The other commenters have correctly described how you could run metallic conduit (EMT) or PVC, and that would be perfectly acceptable for “low voltage” wires like twisted pair Ethernet. But it’s also kinda overbuilding it, because EMT or PVC are also suitable for “line voltage” AC electricity. Other conduit types are available, depending on your jurisdiction, since EMT is meant to provide physical protection and PVC is meant for be water-resistant. And both provide physical support for the wires within. None of these qualities are really required for Cat 5/6 cabling.

Here in California, it is permissible to use ENT – with an N – also known as Smurf tube for its blue color, for line-voltage applications where no environmental protection (physical, UV, vibrations) is required. Smurf tube is made from thin, corrugated plastic in standard sizes, so it’s easy to pass through top-plates and anchor to studs. This makes it an excellent choice for organizing low-voltage wires, or for future proofing.

Indeed, if you really wanted to, you could terminate the Smurf tube into standard outlet boxes, so that there’s zero exposure to the insulation batts within the wall, for when you later fish the cables through. For a still-acceptable arrangement, the Smurf tube could be anchored just above where you’ve cut out a hole for the future wall-plate, allowing retrieval of the cable through that hole. You should not later use these conduits for AC electricity though, and mixing low-voltage and line-voltage in the same conduit or box is typically prohibited.

I do think that conduit is true future proofing. Who knows if CAT6, 7, or 8 just gets replaced (finally) with fibre optic cables. Or perhaps you decide to become a ham radio operator and thus need to run specialized coax. Or maybe you really want a 50 ft HDMI cable from the upstairs living room down to the man-cave in this basement. Running wire today is temporary, but conduit is forever haha.

Normally, the bonding arrangement should also include a connection to the slab, by way of a piece of rebar poking up from the foundation. The point of bonding is to attach as many normally-grounded things together, and this usually happens around the service entrance, as a matter of convenience. Here in California, we might use an outlet box on the side of the house to reveal the rebar bonding link, but perhaps Canada puts it somewhere else due to the heat loss in winter.

I should add that I might have a bit of a complex grounding situation. I’m sharing a well and internet connection with my old house which is about 200’ away on the same property.

That the new house is a subordinate structure has a small impact on how the bonding is set up. Since neutral and ground are already bonded at the service for the old house – and I’m assuming there are no transformers used over that 200 ft wire run – the new house must make sure to not bond ground and neutral. Indeed, after the bonding point in the old house, ground and neutral should never be intentionally bonded anywhere else. A mistaken bond can lead to the “objectionable currents” I mentioned earlier, but this is diagnosed the same way by turning stuff off to see if the voltage goes away.

But apart from this difference compared to the old house, all other things should be bonded to the new house’s ground: water fitting, shield wires (if present) on any telecom wires, gas pipe. Because of your substantial distance between the two structures, it’s possible that the grounding system would have been simpler if the electrical service was “derived” using a transformer, such that the new house would have a different service that would be bonded to its ground, just like a standard home. But that ship has sailed.

A brass fitting on the poly pipe bringing water into my new house is at the same potential as my slab - that is, 20V from electrical ground.

Once the source of your ground current is found and mitigated, you may also consider bonding this water fitting to ground, at both the old and new homes. That way, if a future issue arises with the ground, it won’t be using the water as a conductor and causing a shock risk. Even if you don’t find the source of ground current, this is still a good idea, since some ground currents are perfectly natural – especially over 200 ft – but the risks posed by them can be mitigated by forcing everything to be at the same voltage (thus no more shock risk).

Indeed, one way that electricians test for the magnitude of a ground fault is to set up a temporary bond and measure the current through it. If large residual currents start to flow, it might indicate that the proper bonding elsewhere is faulty. I think you correctly assessed your issue as definitely non-trivial and an electrician should investigate thoroughly.

I’m using Cat6 copper to share the internet and am only getting 100Mbps on the link.

Seeing as you’ve already buried the cable, my comments are a bit late. But ground issues for twisted-pair Ethernet cables between buildings is a known issue, with no real solutions other than using non-conductive fibre optic cables or wireless links to bridge between buildings. At my work, we somewhat regularly see issues with twisted-pair cables running between buildings on campus, with the typical result being the death of the switch port where the cable plugs into.

It’s true that Ethernet is supposed to use mini-transformers to isolate the grounds at either end of the cable, but that’s not the only issue: having 200 ft of conductor means that a distant lightning strike induces a sizable voltage on these wires, even when underground. Those mini-transformers behind each port might only tolerate 2000 volt spikes, so if they’ve already been damaged by induced voltages, degraded performance would permanently affect the switch port, although the cable might still be intact.

You may want to re-verify your Ethernet cable using different equipment at the ends, but it may only be a matter of time until future issues arise. At work, we solved most of our woes by changing to wireless APs (eg Ubiquiti) aimed using line-of-sight for existing buildings. Between new buildings, we run fibre cables and then use a converter to turn it back into standard twisted-pair Ethernet once inside the structure.

This is essentially a quick rundown of open-source software licensing. The notice is saying that the TikTok app uses some software that is owned by Facebook, but that Facebook has irrevocably licensed the software such that anyone (including you or TikTok) can use and distribute that software for free, provided they follow the few rules in the BSD 3-clause license, which has three clauses: 1) include these three clauses with any source code copy of Facebook’s software, 2) include these three clauses in the docs bundled with any compiled app that uses Facebook’s software, and 3) do not use Facebook’s name in a way that implies an endorsement or affiliation with Facebook.

TikTok can continue using that particular version of Facebook’s software until the heat death of the universe, and Facebook can never come back later and demand payment from TikTok or you or anyone for that software. But Facebook is still considered the owner, because they retain the right to relicense the software under different terms, perhaps with a license that doesn’t require including the copyright notice, for example. Likewise, Facebook has the right to sue to enforce the BSD 3-clause terms against anyone who isn’t abiding by those terms. But it looks like TikTok is abiding, since they posted the full BSD 3-clause terms, so Facebook can’t complain.

Note: Facebook could change the license for later versions of the software, but any versions prior would be unaffected. Integrating any software commercially always requires checking the license terms, and while open-source software has fairly standardized terms, diligence is still important and licenses do occasionally change.

To start, it might be worth reviewing the recommended antenna traces for wireless ICs, since vendors often provide precomputed and validated reference designs in their data sheets. These are often what are made into breakout boards, and there’s a lot which can be learned by what these reference designs take into consideration.

I’ve not specifically done PCB designs with antennas, but I have done my own designs for high-speed differential signals, where the impedance of two traces have to be consistent along their length, whether side-by-side or on opposite sides of the PCB. As you observed, KiCAD can do a lot of this computation but good antenna design means even the pads that attach to the IC also need to be impedance-matched. And that requires both an understanding of where problems arise (eg when traces turn a corner), how to compute the effects (using KiCAD’s features), and whether the issue might not even make a big difference in overall performance.

Canada has, I think, the same electrical grounding approach as the USA for modern construction-- TN-C-S if using IEC notation. So there should be a ground rod (or two) on the property which ties (aka bonds) the electrical ground with the building itself. This should result in the floors and walls being the same voltage as the ground pin at every receptacle, and thus the surfaces of every metal appliance.

It’s hard to imagine a missing bonding link to the ground rod for new construction, so the next possibility is that an appliance somewhere is miswired and is using the ground wire as a neutral. While it’s true that the TN-C-S grounding system does bond ground and neutral, the ground wire must not actually carry any current in regular service.

Problems from a ground wire being used as the return path include: 1) generating interference for sensitive circuits that expect the ground wire to be unused, 2) possibility of tripping GFCI circuits, and 3) most disturbingly of all, the ground wire voltage is raised above that of the building, creating a shock risk.

Most insidious of all is that a miswired appliance will “pollute” the ground wire for the entire house with this dangerous voltage. So troubleshooting would generally require either measuring for “objectionable current” on the ground wire of every branch circuit, or shutting off circuits until the ground wire voltage disappears. If every circuit is powered off and the voltage still appears, then it might actually be the missing bonding link mentioned earlier. A competent electrician will be able to diagnose either scenario, though either really shouldn’t be happening for new construction.

I think you’re right, as prosumer and low-end enterprise switch vendors have less of an incentive to bundle first-party xcvrs along with switch sales. However, the ISP and large-enteprise market segments still have vendor locks, although many have an “allow unsupported xcvr” mode which will apply best-effort to operate a third-party xcvr but the warranty won’t be honored while such a xcvr is installed.

The likes of Cisco and HPE do things like this, but given that the target customers of such switches are buying them in the hundreds to thousands, and each switch already costs thousands of dollars, the cost of first-party pluggables is just a part of the deal. Such customers also value reliability to a greater degree, so even a miniscule prospect of incompatibility will be avoided.

Insofar as it pertains to this community, the ability to enable the unsupported xcvr mode means old high-end equipment gets a second life in someone’s homelab, since warranties stop mattering there

I know they say to wear layered outfits in anticipation of varying weather or temperature, but if I’m expecting a hail of arrows while en-route to a business lunch, something has already gone very wrong lol

Firstly, and it’s honestly a minor issue, I think your question will draw more answers if it had a title that at least mentions the crux of the question, that is “what is a western style room/home?”.

Anyway, answering the question, the distinction of a western-style room, home, hotel, bathroom, suit, or even envelopes is a description generally used only in contrast to the “global norms” that are Western-world designs. So far as I can tell, this isn’t (usually) rooted in any sort of bias against the non-Western world, but rather a helpful if coarse indicator about what things will look like.

To that end, classification as western style is mostly going to appear in places where that is not the norm or is not endemic to the given place. Japan is a good example as the island nation continues to have its own designs that remain popular, while having imported a great number of western ideas since the Meiji Restoration in the mid 1800s.

Whereas the distinction as western design isn’t very useful when all relevant design options already stem from western approaches. Take for example the slender and tall townhomes common in the Netherlands. If such a townhome were constructed in San Francisco, calling it a western design is terribly unhelpful, as a standard townhouse in San Francisco would already be of American (and thus western) design. Rather, that home would be described as “Dutch style”, to contrast against the standards found in SW America, which hews closely with standard American construction but with notable Spanish influence, such as tile roofs and verandas.

The distinction also doesn’t help when comparing forms that most wouldn’t even find comparable. So an alpine cabin (a cold weather, western design) is not comparable to an Alaskan Indigenous igloo despite both being a home or dwelling. There must be at least some similarity before drawing the destination of western or eastern or whatever design.

I had the bright idea

Haha, I enjoyed that. Although you’re pursuing using parts from a flashlight, I wish to point out that LEDs are now fairly straightforward to put together into a full lighting solution. Generally, it would be an LED module, an optic, and the driver circuit. Maybe a heatsink too. Ok, maybe this is somewhat complicated lol

I’m not affiliated with that supplier, but I’ve bought from them before to build a custom headlight for a bicycle.

Out of curiosity, what is the German word?

I happen to have the EPlus variant of that Schwalbe Marathon, and when I received it, it looked in about the same condition. However, after mounting onto rims, checking that the bead seats properly, and then adding air, there was only minimal deviation when rotating the tire. And after a few laps on warm pavement and in the sun, the deviation was gone and it’s been perfectly fine for the past 9 months.

On a separate note, I’m not familiar with the term “mantle” for a bicycle tire, as a speaker of American English. Is that a regional term? Here in California, we call it the same as for an automobile: tire.

But from what I have gathered, SFP+ is perfectly standardized, and it’s only the lockout code preventing you from using any transceiver on the market

Unfortunately, the situation is not so simple. Even if the various vendor-locks weren’t a thing, the fact is that the testing matrix of xcvrs on the market crossed with the number of switch manufacturers and all their models is ginornous, and it would be a herculean effort to acquire, let alone validate even a subset of all combinations.

While SFP is defined in a standard, the allowable variances – due to things like manufacturing capabilities and the realities of environmental influences – mean that it’s possible for two compliant transceivers to just not link up. It’s unfortunate, but interoperability with so many players and at such cut-throat margins leads to this reality.

And since it’s a chain of components, any incompatibility of switch, xcvr, or fibre can wreck a link, and then the blame game hot-potato gets tossed around since no vendor wants to investigate a link issue if it might not be their fault.

In my experience, though, the initial link negotiation is the most problematic part when building a link that isn’t all supplied by one vendor. Once past this, I find that a link rarely has issues thereafter. Which is good if you’re able to return xcvrs if they don’t work for your setup.

Ok, I’m back. I did some quick research and it looks like that Mikrotik switch should be able to do line-rate between the SFP+ ports. That’s important because if it was somehow doing non-hardware switching, the performance would be awful. That said, my personal opinion is that Mikrotik products are rather unintuitive to use. My experience has been with older Ubiquiti gear and even older HP Procurve enterprise switches. To be fair, though, prosumer products like from Mikrotik have to make some tradeoffs compared to the money-is-no-object enterprise space. But I wasn’t thrilled with the CLI on their routers; maybe the switches are better?

Moving on, that NIC card appears to be equivalent to an Intel x520, so drivers and support should exist for any mainline OS you’re running. For 10 Gbps beyond, I agree that you want to go with pluggable modules when possible, unless you absolutely know that the installation will never run fibre.

I will note that 10 Gbps over Cat 5e – while not mentioned in the standard and thus officially undefined behavior – it has been reported to work over short distance, in the range of 15-30 meters by some accounts. The twisted pair Ethernet specs only call out the supported wire types by their category designation but ultimately, it’s the signal integrity of the differential signals that matter. Cat 3, 5, 5e, 6, etc are just increasingly better at maintaining a signal over a distance. This being officially undefined just means that if it doesn’t work, the manufacturer told no lie.

But you’re right to avoid 10 Gbps twisted pair, as the xcvrs are expensive, thermally ridiculous, power hungry, and themselves have length limits shorter than what the spec allows, because it’s hard to stuff all the hardware into an SFP+ pluggable module. Whereas -SR optics are cheap and DACs even cheaper (when the distance is short enough). No real reason to adopt twisted pair 10 Gbps if fibre is an option.

That said, I didn’t check the compatibility of your selected SR transceiver against your NICs and switch, so I’ll presume you’ve done your homework for that.

Going back to the x8 card in a electrically x4 slot, there’s a thing in the PCIe spec where the only two widths that are mandatory to support are: 1) the physical card width, and 2) the 1x width. No other widths are necessarily supported. So there’s a small possibility that the NIC will only connect at 1x PCIe, which will severely limit your performance. But this is kinda pathological and 9 out of 10 PCIe cards will do graceful width reduction, beyond what the PCIe spec demands. And being an x520 variant, I would expect the driver to have no issue with that, as crummy PCIe drivers can break when their bad assumptions fall through.

Overall, I don’t see any burning red flags with your plan. I hope you’ll update us with new posts as things progress!

I’ll have to review your post in greater detail in a bit, but some initial comments: cross vendor compatibility of xcvrs was a laudable goal failed only by protectionist business interests and the result is that the only real way to validate compatibility is to try it.

Regarding your x4 slot and the NICs being x8: does your mobo have the slot cut in such a way that it can accept a physical x8 card even though only the x4 lanes are electrically connected?

For keystone jacks, I personally use them but I try not to go wild with them, since just like with electrical or RF connectors, each one adds some amount of loss, however minor. Having one keystone jack at each end of the fibre seems like it shouldn’t be an issue at all.

Final observation for now: this plan sets up a 10 Gb network with fibre, but your use-case for now is just for a bigger pipe to your file server. Are you expecting to expand your use-cases in future? If not, the same benefit can be had by a direct fibre run from your single machine to your file server. Still 10 Gbps but no switch needed in the middle, and you have less risk of cross vendor incompatibility.

I’m short on time rn, but I’ll circle back with more thoughts soon.

I enjoyed this etymological wordplay. Bravo!